Reading The Constitution

[Gdjjr]

Stop with the partisan allying- BOTH sides do the same thing using different rhetoric to sell it. It is a bi partisan effort.

I rarely get angry- frustrated yes- the only thing that gets me angry is hurting my feelings. While I do get frustrated, I assure you, no one here has or can hurt my feelings. I am very emotional, a trait I have little control over, but, I "think" of my own accord. I refuse to follow and I'm getting to the point where I may refuse to be led- I detest group think, (partisan allying) or religious dogma. I will not abide either in MY life and I don't care what a dogmatist, or partisan acolyte claims.

Trump is merely a culmination of his his predecessors- period. He isn't necessarily good or inherently bad- he is just a culmination. Historians will provide the tags/labels as they see it.

True leadership is for the benefit of the follower, not the enrichment of the leader-

Trump "may" prove to be better, but, not as yet- Reagan was an actor (a not very good one) but should get an academy award, posthumously, based on the praise he gets- he exhibited charisma, so does Willie Nelson- some have it some don't- that doesn't make them a good leader it just provides an opportunity to lead, or influence- the proof is in the puddin'- the puddin' is, as of now, not tasting of Liberty and Trump nor Republican elected empty suits have offered even lip service to that endeavor.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Stop with the partisan allying- BOTH sides do the same thing using different rhetoric to sell it. It is a bi partisan effort.

I rarely get angry- frustrated yes- the only thing that gets me angry is hurting my feelings. While I do get frustrated, I assure you, no one here has or can hurt my feelings. I am very emotional, a trait I have little control over, but, I "think" of my own accord. I refuse to follow and I'm getting to the point where I may refuse to be led- I detest group think, (partisan allying) or religious dogma. I will not abide either in MY life and I don't care what a dogmatist, or partisan acolyte claims.

Trump is merely a culmination of his his predecessors- period. He isn't necessarily good or inherently bad- he is just a culmination. Historians will provide the tags/labels as they see it.

True leadership is for the benefit of the follower, not the enrichment of the leader-

Trump "may" prove to be better, but, not as yet- Reagan was an actor (a not very good one) but should get an academy award, posthumously, based on the praise he gets- he exhibited charisma, so does Willie Nelson- some have it some don't- that doesn't make them a good leader it just provides an opportunity to lead, or influence- the proof is in the puddin'- the puddin' is, as of now, not tasting of Liberty and Trump nor Republican elected empty suits have offered even lip service to that endeavor.

"BOTH sides do the same thing using different rhetoric to sell it."


I just proved that that's not the case.


Again????

Now.....focus like a laser:

1.
"Trump Attack on Regulation
Starts To Win Admiration
Both At Home and Abroad"
Trump Attack on Regulation Starts To Win Admiration Both At Home and Abroad - The New York Sun




4. Most important to the tyrants...er, Congressmen....is that by producing regulations that stymie businesses....said businesses have to bribe....er, lobby....the Representative to put in loopholes.
Ending regulation is an existential danger to their sinecures: they go to Washington to do good, and end up doing well.

Every notice how many Congressmen leave government far richer than when they went in?





5. ..the establishment GOP, never-Trumpers and the like see Trump as a detriment to their profits/wealth, and here is the explanation:


Most regulations are, in terms of what they are alleged to do, are actually there to be bribed away by the industries that they inhibit.
The pols write them, the corporations pay lobbyists to bribe the pols to insert loopholes....

....hence poor men come to Washington to do good, and leave as millionaires, having made good.

Trump is a threat to their sinecures.



6. "The Economist, in a piece published last month, reported, “the impact of the Trump administration has been dramatic. The flow of new rules is suddenly a dribble. Since Mr Trump was inaugurated the number of regulatory restrictions has grown at about two-fifths of the usual speed.”

....not generally a Trump cheerleader, praised the administration’s approach to financial deregulation as “thoughtful...detailed and rigorous.” It reported, “the new approach in Washington does seem to have boosted business confidence.”



7. Mr. Trump is focusing on a real problem. ... the growth of federal red tape with a thought experiment explaining the difficulty of even reading, let alone complying with, the government imposed rules.

8. “The US Code of Federal Regulations — the annually published set of books containing all federal regulations currently in effect — contained 35.4 million words in 1970. A person could read the entire code in just a few days short of a year, assuming he or she read 250 words per minute, 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year,” ...

9. “By 2016, there were 104.6 million words of federal regulation on the books, about 195 percent growth over 1970, with a corresponding increase in reading time of almost two years. “

10. BM has been running full-page newspaper ads boasting that its Watson artificial intelligence capability can help compliance officers “keep up with 20,000 new or modified regulations a year and 200 revisions a day.”....“humans alone are not going to be able to meet these challenges. "

An assessment of the White House’s progress on deregulation

 

[Gdjjr]

I just proved that that's not the case.

The results speak for themselves- what you've proved is being narrow minded (blinded by partisanship) maybe incapable of Big Picture thinking.

 

[Gdjjr]

It's a shame you're such a partisan- seriously.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I just proved that that's not the case.

The results speak for themselves- what you've proved is being narrow minded (blinded by partisanship) maybe incapable of Big Picture thinking.

I've provided the truth.

You'd rather keep hand-wringing and ignorant.

It's a free country.....for now.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's a shame you're such a partisan- seriously.

I don't see 'partisan' as a pejorative.

I can explain and defend my position, ....and I'm always right.

You should learn that.

 

[Gdjjr]

I don't see 'partisan' as a pejorative.

I can explain and defend my position, ....and I'm always right.

You should learn that.

I didn't use it in that manner- you feel you're always right.

 

[Gdjjr]

You'd rather keep hand-wringing and ignorant.

That's a partisan reaction- you're hand wringing proves it- your refusal to acknowledge truth supports my assertion-
You don't want the truth, you want a partisan ritual to provide a partisan answer.
I advocate Liberty- ALL my posts reflect that, I live it, sleep it, eat it and dream of it- it is who I am- ALL men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights- there are no political party caveats- thus I worship no political party- in fact what I worship is the right of the Individual to exercise his natural rights, the most basic being- think. Falling prey to Party politics is a sad referendum on thought. It encourages more non thinking by those not disposed to thinking-

 

[PoliticalChic]

You'd rather keep hand-wringing and ignorant.

That's a partisan reaction- you're hand wringing proves it- your refusal to acknowledge truth supports my assertion-
You don't want the truth, you want a partisan ritual to provide a partisan answer.
I advocate Liberty- ALL my posts reflect that, I live it, sleep it, eat it and dream of it- it is who I am- ALL men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights- there are no political party caveats- thus I worship no political party- in fact what I worship is the right of the Individual to exercise his natural rights, the most basic being- think. Falling prey to Party politics is a sad referendum on thought. It encourages more non thinking by those not disposed to thinking-

I linked, sourced, and documented my reply.

I 'worship' no party....I simply prove my assertions.

Learn from it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. “Originalists prefer to dive deep into arcane books to support their theories. Sometimes they find support for their ideas in texts that were almost certainly un- known to any of the framers of the Constitution.” Hartmann



If an individual who intended to fulfill his obligation as a Supreme Court Justice wanted to understand how the Founders would have ruled, there is a mechanism.

“As a basis for understanding the Commerce Clause, Professor Barnett examined over 1500 times the word ‘commerce’ appeared in the Philadelphia Gazette between 1715 and 1800. In none of these was the term used to apply more broadly than the meaning identified by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in ‘Lopez,’ in which he maintained that the word ‘commerce’ refers to the trade and exchange of goods, and that process, including transportation of same. A common trilogy was ‘agriculture, manufacturing and commerce.’


For an originalist, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’”
“Originalism: A Quarter-Century of Debate,” by Steven G. Calabresi (Editor), Antonin Scalia (Foreword)



It's not that it is too much trouble for Liberals......it defeats their purpose.